Metaphor Lab Meeting, 25 April 2017

Metaphors in Belgian political discourse: a new look on the identification of

deliberateness

Pauline HEYVAERT, Université de Liège, Université catholique de Louvain

Outline of the presentation

1. Goal of the talk 2. Personal background 3. Starting point of the project: The Paradox of Metaphor -

Deliberateness (Steen, 2008) 4. Outline of the project

a. Introb. Aimc. Methodologyd. Data

5. Conclusion

Goal of the talk

Personal background

Master

Germanic Languages andLiterature

(Dutch – English)

Thesis: How French-speaking learners of Dutch talk and gesture

about placement events

PhD

Research project ADAPOF: A Discursive Approach to the

Paradox of Federalism (Supervised by Julien PERREZ & Min

REUCHAMPS)

Ongoing projects: Belgian Federalism is a Tetris, Basic Income, Citizens’ panel, etc.

Linguistics Political Science

1st year as PhD

ØWork on shared projects ADAPOF

ØDiscovery of the Paradox of metaphor and distinction between deliberate and non-deliberate metaphor

ØApplication of Steen’s three-dimensional model to Belgian political corpus:

“Metaphors in spontaneous political communication: A case study of the use deliberate metaphors in informal political interviews”

Starting point of the project: The Paradox of Metaphor – Deliberateness

Most metaphor are processed by lexical disambiguation, and not by comparison

Solution to this paradox: 3-dimensional model of metaphor analysis

1. Linguistic level: direct versus indirect2. Conceptual level: conventional versus novel3. Communicative level: deliberate versus non-deliberate

The idea of deliberate metaphor = hotly debated issue in literature

➥ especially from theoretical point of view ➥ need for empirical work on how the notion of deliberate

metaphor may be conceived➥ treat deliberateness “as an empirical question” (Steen, 2011)

Starting point of the project: The Paradox of Metaphor – Deliberateness

Metaphors in Belgian political discourse: a new look on the identification of

deliberateness

metaphors which are produced/perceived

as metaphors = more likely to activate + ratify certain properties

of a particular representation(⇾ deliberate)

metaphors which constitutethe type of language use that people

usually use to talk about certain topics will

not have the same effect(⇾ non-deliberate)

Not all metaphors = equal

A few examples…But we can truly support them. That is our historicalresponsibility. It’s an important support we’regoing to provide […]

There are two ways to do politics andrun a country, like there are two ways tosteer a ship. Either your only concern isto keep the ship floating, withoutspecific beacon, without a specificpurpose. You just keep on floating in adirection whatsoever. Or you have amission, a vision, a dream. You have aclear purpose in mind, even if youknow that you sometimes may have toventure wild waters and severe storms.

Today’s policy statement is buildon the same foundations. Butdetermination andthoughtfulness do not meananything without the thirdfoundation of this policystatement: commitment.

Corpus: 2006_NL, PM Verhofstadt

Aim of the projectInstead of determining whether metaphor

= potentially deliberate (yes/no)

take different approach by means of extensive corpus analysis ⟹ list a criteria which can be taken into account as potential indicators

to distinguish

metaphors which are produced/perceived

as metaphors = more likely to activate + ratify certain properties

of a particular representation

metaphors which constitutethe type of language use

that people usually deployto talk about

certain topics willnot have the same effect

Ø Instead of binary opposition (deliberate versus non-deliberate):continuum

Aim of the project

Degree of deliberateness

But we can truly support them[…] It’s an important supportwe’re going to provide.

Today’s policy statement is build on thesame foundations. But determinationand thoughtfulness do not meananything without the third foundation ofthis policy statement: commitment.

There are two ways to do politics and run acountry, like there are two ways to steer a ship.Either your only concern is to keep the shipfloating, without specific beacon, without aspecific purpose. You just keep on floating in adirection whatsoever. Or you have a mission, avision, a dream. You have a clear purpose inmind, even if you know that you sometimes mayhave to venture wild waters and severe storms.

Methodology

1. Application of MIPVU to corpus

2. DMIP: identification of potentially deliberate metaphors

3. Determining degree of deliberateness3a. Use of criteria described in Krennmayr (2011)3b. Additional criteria

Methodology

1. Application of MIPVU to corpus

Ø Bilingual corpus Dutch – French Ø Dutch: Pasma (2011) Ø French: “under construction”

⟹ Problems?

Need for specificity about operationalisation issues and identification decisions

MethodologyMIPVU: Dutch

Ø cf. Trijntje Pasma (2011): Metaphor and register variation: The personalization of Dutch news discourseØ Dictionary: Van Dale

Ø Some issues:Ø Polywords: 1 or separate lexical units? Ø Nouns defined by nominalisation: e.g. « achteruitgang » vs.

« vooruitgang »Ø SCVs: e.g. « draaien om » vs. « omdraaien » ⟹ SCVs = 1 lexical

unitØ Expressions: « terug op gang trekken », « aan de macht komen »,

etc.

MethodologyMIPVU: French

Ø What dictionary should be used? Ø Le Petit Robert (electronic version) Ø Depending on dictionary➝ entries can differ➝ results can differ (cf.

Reijnierse 2010, 2011)

Ø Some issues: Ø Compounds: « Gasfabriek » vs. « Usine à gaz » Ø Multiword expressions:

« winkelen » vs. « faire des courses » « door » vs. « à cause de » / « à travers »

MethodologyConceptual analysis ⟹ Use of WMatrix

Ø Decide on suitable domain labels for SD and TD

Ø“Lexical fields can provide an initial point of entry into (...) conceptual domains” (Steen 2007, p. 190)

Ø Semantic fields & lexical fields ≠ conceptual domains, but closely related

Methodology

Methodology

2. DMIP: Deliberate Metaphor Identification Procedure (Reijnierse, 2017)

« There are two ways to do politics and run a country, like there are two ways to steer a ship. Either your only concern is to keep the ship floating, without specificbeacon, without a specific purpose. You just keep on floating in a direction whatsoever. Or you have a mission, a vision, a dream. You have a clear purpose in mind, even if you know that you sometimes may have to venture wild waters and severe storms. »

⟹ is source domain part of referential meaning of the utterance?

Methodology3a. Use of criteria described in Krennmayr (2011, p. 154-155)

Ø Is the metaphorical unit signalled (e.g. by a simile or other signalling device)?Ø Is the metaphorical unit in the form of A = B?

Ø Is the metaphorical unit expressed directly?

Ø Is the metaphorical unit novel?

Ø Is the metaphorical unit surrounded by metaphorical expressions from compatible semantic fields, which are somehow connected?

Ø Is the metaphorical sense of the unit particularly salient through, for example, alluding to the topic of the text?

ØDoes the metaphorical unit participate in word play?

ØDoes the metaphorical unit elicit rhetorical effects such as, for example, persuasion or humor?

Methodology

3b. Additional criteria

Ø Frequency (high frequency vs. low frequency, even hapax) Ø Need for conversational inferences (to what extent do we need to have

context in order to understand what is said) ØPossibility alternatives:

Few or no alternatives possible ⟹ strongly shared, low saliency vs.

Alternatives = available ⟹ activate one representation over another

“The temperature rises” vs. “Belgian Federalism is a Tetris game”

Methodology

- High frequency as MRW - No need for

conversational inferences to understand

- Few alternatives possible to say the same

- strongly shared

- Tetris as MRW = very novel, very rare, low frequency

- Need for conversational inferences, need for context in order to be understood

- Alternatives are available - Metaphorical sense is not

lexicalized, not strongly shared

Combination of steps mentioned previously:

⟹ describe use of deliberate metaphor based on systematic identification of a large number of metaphors in discourse

⟹ quantitative and qualitative perspectives:- quantitative: provide insight into distribution and frequency of DM in language use - qualitative: manifestations of DM to analyse functions and forms of DM

Methodology

Data: Belgian political discourse

Political discourse = ideal:

Situated in a space of “conflicts” between representationsof topics and issues

Lends itself quite naturally to

the use of metaphors that are

likely to highlight and activate

certain properties of particular

representations

Data: Belgian political discourse

ØChosen corpus: Belgian governmental declaration

ØTimespan: 2006 – 2016 (10 years)

ØSize of corpus: approximately 1 million words

Brief overview Belgian politics:

2006 – 2016

2006 2007 2008 2009June ‘07: Federal elections⟹ Negotiations to form governmental coalition ⟹ Characterized by disagreement between Dutch- and French-speaking parties: need and nature of constitutional reform⟹ Political crisis

November ‘07: Negotiations are still ongoing⟹ Longest formation period in Belgium

December ‘07: Interim Government⟹ 194 days without government

March 20, 2008: New government

Prime Minister: Yves Leterme

First Belgian political crisis (2007 – 2008)

2010 2011 2012At that moment: political, economic and ideological instability

February 17, 2011: World record: 249 days of political crisis

December 6, 2011: New government with Elio Di Rupo as Prime Minister ⟹ 541 days without government Second Belgian political

crisis (2010 – 2011)

June ’10: Federal elections ⟹ Widen gap between political parties

Wallonia: PS (left-wing party) Flanders: N-VA (right-wing party)

December 25, 2010: ⟹ 195 days without government

2010 2011 2012

Agreement regarding the Sixth State Reform is reached:

Butterfly Agreement

2013 2014 2015 2016

May 2014: Federal elections

⟹ Beginning of new government with Charles Michel as Prime Minister

“Swedish Coalition”

⟹ 1 French-speaking party (MR) + 3 Dutch-speaking parties (N-VA, CD&V, Open Vld) = surprising and novel majority

Overall analysis of the corpus

ØMIPVU: 2006 – 2011 – 2014 ØAdapted version of MIPVU: other years

➥ not taking into account all lexical units ➥ concordance search to find potentially relevant context ➥ to what extent is it necessary to fully apply MIPVU?

Ø Further analyse MRWs with DMIP

Extra: “in-between cases”

Deliberateness

Metaphorical

Extra: “in-between cases”

“In-between” cases

“Wafelijzerpolitiek” (waffle iron politics); “Usine à gaz” (gas plant)

ØNot MRW according to MIPVU ØYet, not without importance in political discourse

ConclusionØDefine deliberateness in terms of degree ⟺ yes/no

Ø Contribution to ongoing debate on deliberate metaphors

Ø Use of extensive political discourse (10 years, 1 million words)

Ø Linguistic + conceptual + rhetorically-oriented + discourse-analytical approaches

Ø Still some methodological issues left: Ø MIPVU Ø WMatrixØ Additional criteriaØ …

Ø Provide material for further research on existence of deliberate metaphor

Metaphor Lab Meeting, 25 April 2017

Thank you !

Pauline HEYVAERT, Université de Liège, Université catholique de Louvain